Through The Wormhole: Beyond The Darkness

What is the universe made of? If you answered stars, planets, gas and dust, you'd be dead wrong. Thirty years ago, scientists first realized that some unknown dark substance was affecting the way galaxies moved.

Today, they think there must be five times as much dark matter as regular matter out there. But they have no idea what it is - only that it's not made of atoms, or any other matter we are familiar with. And Dark Matter is not the only strange substance in the Universe - a newly discovered force, called Dark Energy, seems to be pushing the very fabric of the cosmos apart.

The composition of the universe may seem straightforward, something you mastered back in your junior high science class - galaxies made up of planets and stars, stars made up of burning gases and dust. But this idea of the universe only includes the parts that we can see, either with the naked eye or even with powerful telescopes.

According to scientists, the visible portions of the universe account for less than 95 percent of what is actually out there in the great expanse of space. Much of the universe is made up of something we can't see. We call this something "dark matter," and we only discovered its existence because something else was missing.

70 Comments / User Reviews

My theory is time is an ocean and dark energy is the osmosis or settling of time to a non displaced settled body of fluid. Both gravity and dark energy are time related. The more space you have displaced or not displaced makes each stronger....ie....larger planet, stronger gravity.....more space stronger dark energy. Hence the speeding up of the expansion. Just a theory.

Just watched beyond the darkness and saw how Dark energy and dark matter are two forces opposing each other. I thouhgt of a simulare process of a Star's fight of its fusion pushing against gravity. The stars existence depends on the balance of these two forces. When the star runs out of energy there is an effect on the fusion side of these two struggling forces so the fusion parts starts to lose the force war. I was comparing the two situation the star with the universes two dark properties dark energy and and dark matter. Continueing the comparison prosess if dark energy some how becomes weaker then dark matter and gravity can be more dominant and vise versa if some how dark matter becomes weaker then it would lose to dark energy. For the first 7 million years dark matter was more powerfull then after the 7million year mark dark energy started to take over and winning and being more massive and its repelling charictureristics are more dominate now. Its like Dark matter is the one that is running out of fuel like the dieing star. Once the Star is out of fuel gravity takes over and cruses the star.With the Universe the opposite is happening the crushing force is losing and the expanding force (Dark enery) is winning at the moment. It seems like Dark energy will carry its momentum to its ending conclusion of ripping every thing apart unless it losses it mometum some how. not sure how that is going to happen.

wow... of all the things to comment on... 555 chooses to bash all Americans. His reasoning? Because the science channel's narration uses relevant human terms to communicate its meaning to its curious audience (who may or may not have an scientific background or training....just curious). Obviously 555 is too evolved to require such belittling comparisons. He likes it given to him straight.... so here it is.... 'You live then you die, the universe will not even remember you were here". There now the super evolved non American humans are happy too.

Why can't americans just live in peace one time? Listen to the script here voiced over by the uh, lucid and so so conscious M Freeman selling 'science' to the masses, oh how d'you do that? Dress it up as gang war, natch. Who said it was necessary to describe phenomenon in bellicose terms.'..the cosmic contest' .. 'where will this mighty battle end?' .. '..tear our universe to pieces?' ad fkn nausea.. We could just laugh at this cretinous bullshit but they're running the planet with their jingo. Do all americans think the future has to be about cowboys v indians, uncle Sam v gooks, oil lobbies against Iraqis and nothing works without a gun in its hand not even disemination of objective information?

A year ago....I will respond anyway. What makes me nauseous is that your intellect cannot decipher the difference between reality and the exploitative nature of media information. Are you so ignorant that you really believe that you can negatively sum up the abilities and motivations of an entire nation based upon a few outlets of representation? Dig a little deeper, unless your arrogance cannot invite the concept. Not only am I American but I also reside in Texas. Does it blow your mind that I should even attempt to contend with your pretentiousness or should you paint me with a gun in each hand? Please don't let me unravel your tightly knit security blanket to expose you to the truth. Only then might your hatred and prejudice fall away so that more important themes can occupy your mind. Oh, by the way...I can also use the words cretinous and bellicose in context but I prefer to steer my interests towards education. You are welcome to do the same.

the555hit
- 11/09/2013 at 20:21

Thanks.

" . . your intellect cannot decipher the
difference between reality and the exploitative nature of media information."
When you finally finish your paper on what exactly that difference could be ---- please send me a copy.

Had a few thoughts or wondering as to
1. If the universe is expanding and we are seeing that the galaxies are moving further apart, then shouldn't there be a center for all this expansion? Why haven't we found a galaxy that is coming towards us!? If we haven't found it yet, should our galaxy then be the center of the universe?
2. Darkness is absence of light correct? Then, the reason for light to not be present is generally because of shadows? If so, then shouldn't there be a source of light that is falling upon an object which is casting a shadow?
3. For light from other universe to reach us, there has to a medium that carries light? What is this medium made off?

1...our galaxy is not the centre of the universe, everything is situated like on a balloon, that is expanding, the center was the initial singularity. And yes the "Andromeda Galaxy is going to engulf our Milky way galaxy very soon in cosmic time, soon in cosmic time means billions of years.

2...Light is an electromagnetic force, light is composed of wavelengths of different spectrums. Re: prism, ultraviolet etc:

3...Photons are the carriers of light, which is composed of waves and particles, but never both at the same time, only if observed that is, Re: double slit experiment.

kphemanth
- 12/14/2011 at 07:40

Hi Achems_Razor: Thanks for the reply.

3.... Yep, I know that photons are the carriers of light. They are composed of waves or particles. However, for these waves to travel, they need energy and medium to which this energy is transfered. My doubt was what is the medium tru which these waves or particles of light are traveling or what is it that is carrying these waves or particles?

1. well, i know its not the center of the universe, though there has to be a galaxy or a lot of galaxies that are heading towards ours. If there are then, we will be able to look towards the center of the universe. Hence asked. :)

2. Well, as everyone knows, there is nothing called darkness. Its just absence of light. As light needs a medium to travel, darkness is created if there is no medium for it to travel upon or if there is something that is blocking it from reaching that space correct? Was wondering if there is indeed something that is blocking light from reaching few points in our universe creating what we see as darkness or emptiness.. :)

P.S: Please bare with me as I am not a master in these and may sound a naive. Thanks though for ur kind reply..:) Space, time, universe, life all these fascinate me a lot and hence these wondering.:)

"laws" of physics are merely humanity's observations on the known force and matter around us.
Who's to say they apply to the forces unknown to us? :)

They claim that our atom based reality is a mere 5% of the total universe, dark matter 25% and dark energy 70%.
If you accept that in addition to
the brane theory from episode 4, is it not plausible to say that maybe our tiny 5% of matter is nothing more then debris
that got transferred in a collision
from an brane using our laws of physics
into another brane consisting of dark matter & energy
which uses a complete different set of laws? :)
And that in this moment we are being isolated by dark matter
and expelled by dark energy much like our immune system would do with a disease? :D

btw was this the last episode?
because i really got sucked into the wormhole ^^

@ Randy
Not sure if its just me and my incompetence on this pc but i've not 'heard' you on here for some time, hope all is well with you. I've missed your wit.
(what did you write on sci fi? Should Asimov be worried?(some kind of smiling face))

When I was young, a few bicep curls would have powerful results, but nowadays...

Eventually, you have to give up on ever looking good naked again, LOL!

At least once a year, I have to watch "The Wrath of Khan", my favorite Star Trek flick... (of course, I also have to dig out my DVD of the episode on which is it based, "The Space Seed" and watch that as a prelude...)

There are a TON of sensitive nerve endings on the coxis/tail bone... very sensitive.

Sure, get women's points of view, I would love that as I love studying the ideas and outlooks of women. Because women are FAR more interesting than men.

But, I have a theory that begins with the idea that symetry and body shape, (ie, a woman's waist to hip ratio, or a man's shoulder to waist ratio), indicates to our biological, breeding organism an ideal of health and susceptiblilty to successful breeding.

That is not in question, really.

But maybe the male ass is another signal to a female that the man is healthy and a good canditate for breeding?

Well now you have got me in hysterics (LMAO) you want to build your ass up? probably some good stuff on the web, I looked for you, the first one says "are you happy with your butt"? check out "Top Ten Butt Exercises" on how to get the maximum out of your gluteus maximus.

That might help you out, I hope Vlatko doesn't kick us off the site, I don't know if this stuff is related to beyond the darkness doc. (LOL)
But there you go, give it a try. (LOL)

HAHAHA!! Yes, what IS it with women and asses? I can certainly understand the gays, (not that their is anything wrong with that!), but with women, I mean, if you are doing it right, no matter what position you enjoy, they really should have no contact with it during the act!

Am I right!!! LOL!!!!!

Well. congrats to you, my friend! Years of sitting at a computer have taken its toll on this skinny man with no-ass!

Was just married in the 60's sent my wife to work, we both worked then, had a little 12inch black and white tv. was glued to the first star trek series coming out at that time, watching tv. with our little chiwawa dog beside me, in our first home, a 40foot house trailer, Ha, those where the days (LOL) I hate time, time is a bald headed hermit. (LOL)

I was watching a Star Trek: TNG episode the other day, (from the really good fourth season with all the great Klingon and Romulan intrigue, probably the best writing of the series was in the third and fourth seasons...), and I had a small epiphany, which may of course be bunk.

But I submit it, in all humility and with the sure knowledge that Star Trek, in toto has inspired more scientists and astro-phycisists since the 60's than any other driving force.

(Hell, the cell phone was invented by a man who desperately wanted the ST communicator to be a reality... that's just one example...)

I would submit, that a lot of astro-phycisists, (maybe as little as 5-9%, I've known a few...), hold on to wormholes, dark matter, and dark energy because they are major plot points in dozens of Star Trek episodes. And they really, really want Star Trek to be true! (I do not disparage, I also love Star Trek in all forms... but-- you know--- reality, and stuff...)

I understand the dark matter is only a theory but, if it's true, what if this dark matter is genuine 'material' of the space into which our universe was born (either in big bang or whatever it was). What if it's nature is so alien because we have two 'worlds' being mixed here? Maybe even different laws of physics? And as beings from our world we do not have senses to perceive this different 'world'. Just a thought :)

Yes, its true have to rely on the net to find some stuff, but not all, I have books to! No computers back in them there days. (LOL). but I know you have much more reliable info, and know more on these subjects.
You where basically there in the action.

I agree, don't really know how true the info on Wikipedia or the net is.

But according to Wiki. the Casimir effect is what Hawking's lost at least one bet with Kip Thorne.

They now say that the Casimir effect (Re: black holes) is evidence that negative energy densities are possible in nature.

I really do not understand what you are impying. Just when I think I get it, I read the next sentence and it falls apart...

For example...

"Exclusively shooting down newton gains no ground amongst us 21st century folk..."

That seems to imply you disagree with revising Newton's laws- then...

"The south paw to any theoretical debate is an archaic equation amongst more theoretical debating..."

Then this sentence seems to say something then falls apart on its own... Does that mean that the "south paw" is Newtonian Law? Or am I the south paw? The rogue physicists?

At first you seem to say, you do NOT want to "shoot down" Newtonian Law, then you seem to call it "archaic".

But, I thought I presented the argument fairly well, if not briefly and with out pages of equations, which I would surely miss-transcribe and bore the majority of readers to death.

I don't have hours to write out a detailed thesis on someone else's blog.

And, of course, we are only talking of Newton's qravitational rules, not calculus or any of his other work, (and possibly some of Kepplar's Laws of Planetary motion... but that is whole other can of worms...).

And as I said clearly, there is not enough evidence yet to argue the point in any other way than "friendly".

Hmmm... I seem to remember a baseball card involved in the bet, as well. And I will dig up the paperwork, but I do remember Stephen implying that information would not "survive" the motion through a black hole at all, nothing about it being "hidden".

But thank you for the name of his opponent in the wager.

And it was just a couple/few years ago, I remember reading the reports in this house and we only bought it 7 years ago. You have to realize that in the real world of acedemia, many of the best scientists, doctors, lawyers in the world mis-trust the internet for info, and rely on books. Solid, scrupulously veryfied, books.

The internet is a good starting tool, but the information is too easy, too on the fly, easily changeable by any unscrupulous whacko. Good doctors hate it, because it makes all their patients think they know as much as they... beware easy information!

As far as traversable black holes, what I was talking about was Stephen's original ideas about black holes that they may be "wormholes" or conduits to other places in space/time, or other Universes, etc.

"Although, they could be wrong… I can see the maths and the equations and there is a compelling argument, either way."
-randy

Alas, a compelling argument!? please, indulge the creative physicist by proposing an actual argument. Exclusively shooting down newton gains no ground amongst us 21st century folk. The south paw to any theoretical debate is an archaic equation amongst more theoretical debating.

@Refa
They say, it does not interact with normal matter by means of for example collision, chemical reactions, physical stuff like heat and so on. It only affects normal matter via it's gravity.
The galaxy scale is huge compared to our solar system. The "gaps" between the stars are really big. If such a force exists, it could be noticeable in such a scale, and really small on tiny scales.
Also it does not have to obey a linear law. Also, precise measurements of the distance to our moon showed that Newton laws aren't exactly perfect. There is something with the gravity that need to be explained.
Also, as you suggest, the forces(gravitational) acting on a galaxy scale could not be explained with a super massive black hole it it's center. The stars are moving as the mass (matter) isn't in the center, but across the galaxy and even around it.

Yes, indeed. I agree, and that is what I was essentially trying to get at.

@Bondd

LOL, yes, I wrote a story once where dark matter was found to be giant, galaxy-sized, Cthulu-type, space squids. It was pretty scary!

@Achem's

Stephen, (who you and I know loves his Arby's!), had a bet with another prominent physicist, (his name escapes me...), that black holes were in fact, traversable. The terms of the bet were a rare baseball card, I believe.

The other man believed they were not, Stephen blelieved they were. But, in a famous press conference, a couple of years ago, Stephen had to finally admit defeat, and that his math would simply not prove out.

That was what I was talking about. Is that in "Stephen Hawking: Master of the Universe?", because I saw it all on another doc on the science channel, (and of course read the newspaper articles on the public announcement, including the complete transcript of Stephen's speech...)

Are you smoking crack or something man? You didn't form a single coherent sentence in your entire post. I have no idea what you where trying to say. I think you where trying to endorse the idea of a creator or god but, even that is kind of sketchy. I don't mean to poke at you I'm just curiouse what you meant.

Any mathematical law / theory is "dogma" until it is proven to be incorrect or deficient by a new theory that is better than its predecessor.
Science advances equally well with "wrongs" as well as "rights". It is all well and good to propose a new theory about anything or everything but until you have the data or the mathemtaics to back it up you may as well just say that "here there be dragons" !
Physics (Einsteinian not Newtonian) so far decrees that we need dark matter and dark energy to fill in the gaps in the equations. Neither Einstein nor Hawking nor Sagan were able to come up with the missing link(s)in that equation. Perhaps there needs to be a complete change in the mathematics, which would be the most dramatical overhaul of human knowledge to date. That is why the LHC was built. The point is; scientific methodology is the best instrument humans have created to tackle such issues. And until we come up with a better method then that is all we have. Considering that we have only been at this for the last 200 years we have done a pretty good job. The other alternative is to pronounce that "god" did it, which it seems a majority of people are inclined to support.
If I want to believe that there is a holy rhinocerous that creates universes from its anus every 20 billion years how can you argue with me ?
If I prove it with observable data and the mathematics to match then you will have no other choice but to believe. (Unless, of course, you believe in the flying spaghetti monster instead).

LOL! Yes Morgan Freeman is totally sexy! But he is an actor and an orator. I don't know if he actually understands what he is narorating here, but he may... he is a very intelligent man.

However, I KNOW Carl knew his stuff... although... not sexy... (LOL!)

@SAM

Hmmm... yes well, again, much of the known Universe is/are mathematical models. And much of those have "holes" that have been filled in with Newtonian mechanics.

When you use these laws, (which admittedly, are certainly true and proven on this world...), you get "null" spaces that physicists call Dark Matter/Energy...

If you allow for variable gravitational laws, then the equations balance and Dark/Matter is no longer needed.

For example, Black Holes, which we know of-- and have a gravitational effect that seems to defy Newton.

However, even Stephen Hawking admitted that "information" could not possibly survive the gravitational forces of a Black Hole and therefore, could not be corridors to other Universes, or conduits for interstellar travel, (wormholes), as he originally suspected.

There is a documentary on that subject on this sight, I believe... it is fascinating... "Stephen Hawking's Bet" or something like that?

Anyway, am I making any sense to you, Sam? I am not diminishing your contribution or in anyway, truely dissagreeing with you, (as I say, I stand aloof on the subject until physical proof can be tested), I am just speaking for the rogues right now, until they are proven wrong.

for this big and balanced system there must be creator who create this system.
i think the black holes is the gate to another systems, but these gates is one way (i mean we can go but we cant come back)
so there is other people and other systems, one day we will see them and visit them but we cant travel by time,
the god create us in this planet like he create the planet and the all systems it selfs,

Well, you cannot expect scientists observing phenomena thousands or million light years away and actually come with a scientific proof. It is to be expected that all you can get is a hypothesis.

If we 're going to explain why the stars of galaxies have such speeds, we 'll have to at least be there and get observational data by actual probes.

As for the LHC, maybe it's not the perfect substitute of us visiting those space regions but it can provide us with new observational, real data. No matter what the purpose of building the LHC, these data will give a chance for real science and may or may not confirm our beliefs about physics.

If we were not so preoccupied by our earthly affairs(with which we usually deal poorly), we could have explored our solar system, at least, better and might have new insights about how cosmos works.

@TJ, good point. I don't think there are many people that don't take the Big Bang seriously, and as you said, it's also just a theory. I guess my fears on the subject stem from what my astronomy professor told me one day after class; he said there are some people who use dark matter/energy to validate their belief in god; essentially: dark matter/energy exists, dark matter/energy can't be seen, i.e.-dark matter/energy is, or proves the existence of, god. That seems like a pretty big leap of faith to me. This is an extreme example of how a theory can be used as an absolute fact to promote an agenda that is not actually seeking knowledge. I'm not saying that this is what's happening here; I'm just mindful of the possibility after having been told this by my professor.

Well, I still don't believe in Dark Matter, it just doesn't make sense. How can a particle have some gravitational force while it doesn't interact with normal matter? If Dark Matter is the reason galaxy's are formed, then surely it must interact with matter somehow. But then they say it doesn't interact, now what is it?

And even worse: Dark Matter is only needed to explain the motion of the galaxy. You don't need that extra gravity to explain the motion of a solar system. Therefor, logic tells me that if you put 90% of extra gravity in a model of the solar system, it couldn't have the same motion as it has in reality. If Dark Matter was inside the solar system, shouldn't all planets move around the Sun at the same speed, just as moving stars in the galaxy?

No, I stick to my original explanation: the "extra mass" calculated is just the massive black holes in the center of the galaxys. It is a simple explanation that works pretty well, no need for expensive experiments trying to find particles that probably are not even there.

So I think we should change the name to "Black Hole Matter", anyone agree?

LOL I always get excited to see what Morgan Freeman is going to say about his childhood again! I wonder if he actually experienced these events or if they are just written for the show...."as a young boy i was...."

Yes @m.z, it's just a theory, and a weird one at that, but I don't think it's any less plausible than, say, the Big Bang. It seems like kind of a silly idea at first glance but people have to remember that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it's not there. Even if it isn't, humans are only aware of a tiny slice of the universe. The vast majority of it is just empty space. Materialists seem to forget this fact sometimes.

Up until this spring the only thing I knew about astronomy was that there are 9 planets in our solar system; turns out this isn't even true. This spring I took an introductory course to astronomy and what I learned from this (beyond the characteristics of terrestrial/jovian planets, and reading the H-R diagram, these being are primary focus) was that dark matter/energy are just hypothetical. They don't know if WIMP's actually exist, and they can't detect dark matter on the electromagnetic spectrum (this is what causes me real confusion; are the waves beyond gamma or radio or do they not emit energy???); these are just two examples of the unknown variables in the hypothesis. Like I said, I've only taken one astronomy class; so my knowledge is obviously limited. But, my professor told me the one thing that is important to know in regards to this stuff is it's all theory. This doesn't mean it's not true, but regardless of what subject you are discussing it seems dangerous to me to talk about hypothetical theories in concrete terms. Regardless, pretty cool documentary or maybe I just really like Morgan Freeman's voice? I'm totally fascinated by astronomy so if anyone has some sources they could share (websites, articles, docs, books, whatever) it would be cool with me.

As I have stated in many a thread on this "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy" subject, I was riveted and fascinated by the idea for many years. I wrote stories about it and was completely engrossed in the concept that as much as 90% of the Universe consisted of matter and energy we could not see or detect with any conventional apperatus, or with the naked eye.

Then, I realized that the maths that predicted Dark Matter/Energy were based on Newtonian formulae of gravity and mass that may well not be universal throughout the expanse of time/space...

So... if you chuck Newton for everything but the Earth, then, you have no Dark Matter/Energy. But, Newton is considered DOGMA in astrophysical circles, so astronomers will burn you at the stake if you suggest that his mechanics may not be applicable everywhere.

Only a few rogue scientists, considered whackos, even mention it, but... I agree with them.

Although, they could be wrong... I can see the maths and the equations and there is a compelling argument, either way.

As I have said before, I really love the idea of Dark Matter/Energy being true/proving true... but so far... I stand aloof...